Labour private poll: “Boris winning the 2nd prefs war”
February 28th, 2008
The secret survey that shows Ken could be in trouble
When on Tuesday Ken sought to counter the latest YouGov mayoral figures by revealing party private polling data he set off a disclosure process that has, for the first time I believe, allowed us to look at the full numbers from a Labour survey that was supposed to be secret.
And with this election looking very tight a key factor will be how the second preferences split - will they favour Ken as they did four years ago or could they offer something to the Tory challenger, Boris Johnson?
From this poll, at least, it is not looking good for the incumbent. According to his party’s MORI data for every three second preference votes that he’s getting his Tory opponent is picking up four.
Labour’s private poll looked at this in three ways and on each approach the picture was the same - whether for all those naming a choice, the “certains to vote” or from a third question that has so far not been revealed - a forced choice between Boris and Ken
To the question “Thinking specifically about Boris Johnson, the Conservative candidate and Ken Livingstone, the Labour candidate, if you were forced to choose between
them, which would you prefer to be Mayor of London?” those certain to vote split Ken 49% to Boris’s 47%. Given that when all candidates were included Ken had a four point lead this underlines the point.
There’s a further factor which should be worrying the Ken camp - turnout. In 2004 this was 36.95%. The “certain to vote” proportion in this Labour Mori poll was 48%. My view is that the smaller the turnout figure the more challenging the election will be for Ken and that it will end up being closer to what happened last time than the polling figure.
It should be noted that the later YouGov poll with Boris 5% ahead was taken after the Lee Jasper suspension, does not include any probing on second preferences and had no turnout element.
In the Mayoral betting Ken has continued to move out. He’s now at 0.79/1. Based on the information we now have Ken is worth laying at anything up to evens.
MessageSpace Advertising
test
There are the people who voted Ken last time who are much less likely to support him this time:
Jews (obvious)
Hindus (hate Qaradawi who calls them ‘pigs and dogs’)
Gays (hate Qaradawi who wants them executed)
Young people (Boris has got more yoof appeal)
Anti-Establishment types (Ken is now seen as quite Establishment)
Anti-corrupt politician types (thanks to Lee Jasper)
Sufi Muslims (hate Qaradawi more than anyone)
And these are the groups who will stand by him.
Orthodox Muslims
Blacks (although they are less likey to vote)
Ideological Left wingers (how many of them are there?)
Add to that the differential turn-out because of the Tory revival, the drip, drip of bad news stories and the professionalism of Lynton Crosby and Mike’s view that Ken is in trouble must be right.
Michael Bloomberg has an article in the New York Times, saying he will not run for presidency. Sorry about the long link, have no idea how to do the short thingy, and I am knackered after a long night shift.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/opinion/28mike.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
I think you are being over generous to Ken suggesting laying him only to evens. The polling evidence seems to show that Boris should be the faveourite. At least I think he is and have invested accordingly!
4. “polling evidence seems to show that Boris should be the faveourite. ”
Those would be the polls showing Ken in the lead, then.
In the polling data above, what’s the distinction between ‘Undecided’ and ‘Don’t know’ ?
5. Um yeah, ok. Nevermind the most recent poll showing Boris 5 % ahead, or the fact that the Mori poll (before all the sleaze stories) showed Ken only 2% ahead, or that in 2004 Ken had 20%+ poll leads only to win narrowly.
Well I guess we’ll just have to wait and see..
Will the mayoral election be decided on scandals,blunders,gaffes and the general ‘noise’ or will it be decided in a more normal fashion ?
Boris(who couldn’t find his Paddick in the dark) and Ken are the two most indiscreet and gaffe-prone figures in public life and yet they both must be doing something right or they wouldn’t be where they are today.
I cannot see Livingstone winning after a ‘quiet’ campaign because Labour are not the force they were in London but if it is a very ‘noisy’ one it could be a coinflip.
Currently I have 5-2 Boris to very decent money, with fringe benefits on AOC and Paddick.I will toss a few crumbs out at below EVENS and take it from there.
If pressed I would say that Boris was now favourite and has momentum.Nonetheless,16-5 is a better price than 5-2 !
6 “Well I guess we’ll just have to wait and see..”
That would be boring! Ken has issues clearly, and it must be a concern for his campaign team that he looks quite so vulnerable. I would suggest though that the wider public probably haven’t started to take that much notice as of yet. The campaign proper probably won’t get under way until after Easter, that is when we will begin to see the real situation.
8
“Ken has issues clearly”
Whereas Bonker Boris avoids all the issues! Does he eat McCain crisps I wonder?
Sorry to go O/T so early in the thread.
Seems a good time to “lay” Hillary,in the betting sense of course.
The best indicator of Sen. Hillary Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) distress is the fact that erstwhile supporters, including former Clinton Cabinet members, are badmouthing her as a very poor candidate. Inside the Democratic Party, it is already taken for granted that the queen is dead and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is the king.
Boris’s campaign has gone well since the beginning of the year. Yesterdays Cigar case story only serve to reinforce his reputation. I think Ken will try and turn this campaign very negative.
11. Possibly, but there’s effective negative and there’s ineffective (and probably counterproductive) negative.
Effective negative undermines someone’s credibility. Ken will have a tough job trying to do that to Boris as the biggest problem Tories have been acknowledging for a while with Boris’ campaign is that his political career so far has seemed a bit frivalous and lightweight. However, that’s both changing and was never quite as true as some - including at times Boris himself, it seemed - made it sound.
Ineffective campaigning goes more along the grounds of ‘how can you possibly vote for a toff? He has no experience of living in a deprived part of London’. In other words, class-warrior-style abuse which most people don’t care about and those who do are in Ken’s electoral pocket anyway.
Negative campaigning does nothing to improve a party’s or candidate’s own rating directly; the effect is solely a by-product of reducing the opponent’s. It is easy when campaigning negatively to look nasty and wishing to avoid debate on the candidate’s own record / policies. That’s why if it’s not done well by Ken, simply undertaking it can have an adverse impact on his own ratings.
Livingstone is an experienced politician, but as a rule, the longer they stay in office, the more they become detached from reality and the more they become convinced of their own invulnerability. My guess is that media commentators will be surprised by the lack of effectiveness of Ken’s campaign and by how well Boris’ goes down (which given low initial expectations, is perhaps not that surprising).
10. No - the time to lay Clinton or back Barack was when she was 1/3 around Christmas and he was 8/1.
I think there is still more to come from Boris, whereas Ken simply cannot offer anything new. My original theory that the second voters will decide this election seem to be confirmed by your numbers, as Boris and Ken supporters will push each other all the way.
http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com
Looks like the Newt’s appeal is shrinking back to the core ethnic, deprived, and nutter base which it should have always been confined to.
Herbert. You wrote yesterday “Jitters return to the banking sectors amid rumours of an emergency Bank of England meeting with one of the clearing banks in trouble……”
Do you work on the basis that if you keep up this daily ritual one day your prediction must turn out to be accurate?
15. If so he’s just following your lead, Roger.
No one can ever decry Boris’s undoubted intelligence. What he has to do is apply it. To apply it to the problems of running London means working Bl**dy hard. Which something Boris until recently has not been known for.
Ken currently seems to be currently stuck in an early 80’s timewarp.
15.Where is pot, kettle, black.
If Ken starts going negative the best bet would be for Boris to just ignore it and stick to his guns. The public have become more and more disenchanted with politics because it’s become all negative posturing, but if someone comes along who focuses more on positives than negatives they can (if tactically astute) win.
It always astonished me that Livingstone ever won so easily as he and his politics have always been divisive and repugnant.
However, I guess it demonstrates what a truly awful state the Conservatives were in in 97-05.
I also think that Boris’s team should utilise Labours unpopularity more and remind people that McBroon (lying) has been supporting the great newt.
20. JH. In what way ‘repugnant’?
21 - Well giving a platform to a peddlar of bile, hate and poisonous incitement seems pretty repugnant to me.
21. I refer you to 22. but it was the Trotskyist, class warrior, pandering to terroists and dicators(irish and others), special interest rollocks that I was thinking of too.
I think Ken’s biggest problem is running as a Labour man with the spectre of Brown hanging over. Ken is clearly much more popular than the Brown led Labour party, but all the same Brown is the anchor weighing him down, as Labour will find to their cost if they have to run an election campaign with Brown hanging on. Unthinkable.
Ken would be well advised to pick a big time fight with Gordon, and disassociate himself from the daily blunders at number 10 that has become Brown and his team.
Ken is going to lose
After two terms, Ken is looking a little jaded, to say the least. However I wonder if some of those being polled are indulging in a little bravado, ‘I’m gonna vote for Boris I am’ the nearer the day, they might not be so sure!
To me the political news of the day is the Tory pledge to outspend Labour on the NHS, even if this means cutting finance to other departments: defence perhaps? The right’s response will be interesting.
see here.
http://tinyurl.com/ytvhm3
25. Shy Ken voters…hmmm…I think that may be wishful thinking. Given many of the comments on here and elsewhere regarding Boris it is more likely there are shy Boris supporters.
25 - the problem is, the defence budget isn’t really big enough to provide significant funding; if the NHS is to get more money, realistically it’s going to have to come from savings on other areas of the welfare budget. Or, say, abolishing the tendency to spend tens of billions of pounds on IT white elephants.
Some very astute observations and analysis of the Livingstone/Johnson campaign; I would be very interested on others take on Brian Paddick and what shape his campaign will take, does anybody have an inkling?
Or shall we change the topic as Coldstone is so desperate to do?
25
No they may not bother at all!!
How the Daily Mash sees GP’s
http://tinyurl.com/3aw6c8
28
Ooooh if only I had the power.
Still ‘ol Tebbit is stirring the pudding I see.
23 - Ken is the master of slice’n'dice, cut’n’shut politics. Picking off just enough voters in just enough distinct groups to get over the winning line. It is cynical and is actually devastating to politics.
“Ooooh if only I had the power”
Coldstone, ‘You can do it if you really want’
10) Herbert Proper - Lay Hillary now? At this price (1.21 midpoint)?
I get the contrarian aspect but don’t we have strong reason to believe Texas is likely lost and Ohio very close? The mystery to me is why her price has held up so well. I expect her to be trading around 1.1 around 2am GMT on March 5th, with a good chance that she withdraws from the race later that day = 1.01.
Latest stuff
Martin Luther King Civil Rights Peer John Lewis switches Clinton-Obama - (hinted previously)
http://tinyurl.com/2g9z6k
Superdelegates;
MSNBC now make the superdelagate count Clinton 255, Obama 201.
O/T - The Cleggy contortions on the EU Treatystution are getting weirder by the day it seems.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3449054.ece
[20] I think there’s a lot in this. The Mayoralty covers the same area as the old G.L.C., every election for which was lost by the governing party of the day. As, of course, was the Mayoralty in 2000.
I suspect that 2004 will turn out to have been a “once off”. Boris will win this time quite easily, and lose even more heavily in four years’ time - not on his record, but because by then Londoners will want to give the Tory government a kicking.
32
I’d rather not comment!!
33 Yes, PC, and even more of a mystery is why McCain’s price is similarly holding up - at 1.05, that’s free money, imo.
So I see John Lewis has plumped for Obama. Can Debenhams be far behind?
37. 1.05 = heart attack factor.
Er … am I the most right-wing person on here? I couldn’t motivate myself to care very much about any of these issues though …
(P.S. for reference I was initially a Hillary supporter and have moved to McCain now)
Your Results:
82% Rudy Giuliani
72% John McCain
69% Mitt Romney
68% Hillary Clinton
67% Bill Richardson
66% Barack Obama
65% Chris Dodd
62% John Edwards
59% Mike Huckabee
55% Joe Biden
54% Fred Thompson
48% Dennis Kucinich
48% Mike Gravel
44% Ron Paul
41% Tom Tancredo
28 “I would be very interested on others take on Brian Paddick and what shape his campaign will take…”
Pear?
Last time Norris suffered from the Jarvis link
I believe this held back the Tory vote and resulted in a lot of negative publicity
Ken is the one getting the negative publicity this time
Also it is apparent that lib dems are more hostile to Ken than Boris - encouraging voters in soem parts to vote anything but Ken
38 Hmmm…price still seems a bit generous to me, Harry, but then I’m a punter, not a doctor.
Seems Chris Huhne’s assessment of his rival is proving reasonably accurate.
Given that the double referendum (treaty and in/out) amendment has been accepted for debate and vote, why don’t they just vote for that?
34. Is it me or is Clegg handling this incredibly badly?
42. Probably a lot of laying off too - money now rather than August.
34. Corporal Clegg, unlike one of his distinguished predecessors, seems keen to lead his troops away from the sound of gunfire.
We’ve seen enough evidence this week to know that Ken Livingstone is in trouble, as James Burdett has been saying, Boris Johnson should be slight favourite overall now.
re 31 - James your comment does not apply to this election - .”Ken is the master of slice’n’dice, cut’n’shut politics. Picking off just enough voters in just enough distinct groups to get over the winning line. It is cynical and is actually devastating to politics.
The problem with this campaign is that that is not an option. There are no districts to pick off - just one huge electorate of 5 million Londoners which puts a premium on those areas with high turnouts - the outer London Tory/LD boroughs.
Last time a significant proportion split their tickets on the mayoralty and went for Ken. I cannot see that happening this time.
The most striking about the MORI 2nd prefs data is the fall-of in support for Ken compared with last time.
His situation is not yet as bad as Hillary’s - but it could get that way.
48. Bojo going the other way in the markets - 2.28 was avail this morning.
45 Yes. That I can see. I did as much myself a while back.
37) Agreed. May put the Obama bank on McCain for “safe keeping”. I’m not convinced he has a 4ish% chance of dropping out for health reasons - therefore value.
48 - I wasn’t referring to electoral areas but demographic groups. Maybe I should have been more explicit.
Inviting homophobic anti-semitic islamic extremists for talks is one.
34. Clegg is quickly turning a notable embarrassment - the Lib Dem betrayal of their referendum promise - into a very serious debacle.
And all this for… er… uhm… what do the Lib Dems get out of this again? What is it? Can anyone tell me how they benefit from their bizarre volte face?
What do they get? Anyhing? A cabinet seat from Gordon? No. Electoral reform? No. An alliance with Labour? No. Respect from the Tries? No. More votes? No - they lose votes. A united party? Give over. Media support? No, they get media ridicule.
And all this self-destruction is being wrought so they can…. abstain on a vote. On a vote which they promised to support in their manifesto. They are tearing themselves apart and earning the contempt of all sides so they can… abstain on a vote.
And their brilliant solution to their problems is… to promise a referendum on a subject that hasn’t been raised by anyone but them, a referendum everyone knows they would never hold if they came to power.
The Lib Dems are like a bunch of mentally challenged fourth formers. They should be given a special home with lots of soft toys and stimulating plastic bricks.
34. Incredible - has Nick Clegg completely lost it! I just can not understand his reasoning on this issue. The sooner he back peddles from his present utterly irrational EU “in or out” referendum policy the better it will be for the LDs.
54,54. I agree - I’m not a LD fan but why is Clegg hanging his hat on the EU issue - its a non winner for them. He should be carving out a niche - like Cable did on NR.
54. Plastic bricks, bit dangerous? I have to agree with you, the entire lib dem stance is a mess. They’ve managed to create a policy that has no benefits, and plenty of problems. It does look stupid whenever the subject of the treaty comes up that their reply is to make a new question up and try to answer that one. It just looks stupid.
interviewer: do you want a referendum on the lisbon treaty?
lib dem spokesperson: well, we think the issue is in fact membership of the eu and we should have a referendum on that.
interviewer: ok, but thats not actually the question I asked is it.
And thats the main problem, they don’t answer the question.
34 54 55
Nick Clegg proves my dictum “The LibDems have a knack in picking the wrong leader”.
Says it all about how the party thinks. Totally unfit for anything but a minor third party.
Nick Clegg is building on Ming’s work to destroy the LibDems as a credible Opposition Party.
54 “[The LibDems] are tearing themselves apart.”
Agreed. Europe is as toxic for the LibDems now as the issue was for the Tories under Major. With his pathetic staged walk-out, Clegg is completely vacuous - an empty vessel, having dumped his promise for a referendum over the side.
Those MP’s from the SW especially must be wondering what they do. I wonder how many might be considering self-preservation - by defecting to the Tories?
54
I know! juvenile lot, its those bloody Cornish, they keep voting for them!!
Whenever you mention the fact that we’ve already had a referendum on EU membership, Eurosceptics, are quick to remind you, that the referendum wasn’t on the EU, it was on the EEC.
So what’s wrong with having a referendum on the EU? seems a good idea to me.
Be very interesting to see which way certain people jump? you for instance seant: in or out?
Going back to 25, surely the fact that the Conservative Party has pledged to make its priority spending committment the preservation and protection of a socialist institution, (The NHS) marks a momentous moment in British political history.
The Tory Party has now made the full transition to being a Social Denocratic Party, that means at the next GE, we’ve got three to choose from.
Clegg is useless. A mistake. A callow and immature man. Amiable and pleasant, but vain and insubstantial. I think Lib Dems just have to accept they boobed.
On Europe he is especially inept. He is a Europhile to the core, an exMEP, of Dutch and Russian extraction.
There is nothing wrong with that but I suspect it makes him blind to the nuances of the EU debate in the UK - and how destructive the issue can be if handled badly (as the Tories know well).
Clegg is so inept he blurted out, live on TV, that the Lib Dems would actually support the Labour party in nixing a referendum. Now he has desperately rowed back to an abstention, and no doubt he approved the farcical and juvenile Commons walk-out.
Oh dear.
Vince Cable was so obviously the better choice for leader. Cable is the thinking man’s Gordon Brown. Serious without being dour, intelligent without being arrogant, deft without being machiavellian, honest without shoving his moral compass down our throats.
Cable knows that the Lib Dems should have stood by their referendum promise. The LDs must regret not persuading him to be leader.
59. The walk out was hilarious, mainly because Davey was such a whiney teenager about it ‘oh its so unfair, I hate youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu’
re 54. Sean - given that you were never going to vote Lib Dem anyway your views on Clegg are hardly worth considering. Even if the party was fighting for a referendum on the treaty you would find something else to attack.
Virtually nobody cares about the Lisbon treaty apart from a few euro-loons. It’s hardly an issue in the media and is not registering in the polls.
Personally I think that Clegg is wrong - but it’s no big deal electorally.
My Goodness what a load of tory trolls on this morning…
What Michael Lord did is disgraceful, and there will be serious ramifications on his rulings from the Speakers chair. The fact that you all want Clegg to fail does not mean that he is in trouble at all- it just means that the usual crowd of Tory misfits would *like8 it to be true.
Back on thread- tend to think thatKen is in seious trouble, but wil be looking for a couple more pols to see what the breakdown of his core groups is doing. After the Tory foul up in Ealing Southall, I am prety sceptical about this gowing triumphalim, especially as it comes rom the untested theoy that BJ is doing better in the outer boroughs than we think…
Slightly OT, does anyone else think that the hypocritical and cynical move by 1/3 of the Cabinet to campaign against their own policy on Post Offices has the prospects to blow up into a major embarrassment for the Govt? It does show that Brown has no control at all over his Cabinet and “collective responsibility”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/28/npostof128.xml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7268291.stm
I don’t think the Lib Dems are earning everyone’s opprobrium JUST for proposing an in-or-out referendum, Coldstone. It’s that they’ve suddenly introduced this from nowhere for no readily apparent reason while carefully sweeping the referendum they’d earlier committed to under the carpet, all the while stirring up some strange faux-outrage. It just looks odd.
I don’t think anyone would object if they were proposing an in-or-out referendum as well. Although some people might think it a little tangential.
For the record, I’d vote ‘out’ on that one. But I suspect I’d be on the losing side.
Anatole, I’m pleased to see someone elses answers put them on the Rep side too - my answers put John McCain at the top of my list (but only 73%, so yes, I suspect you are the most right-wing person on here
)
64 - What is disgraceful about applying standing orders? What is disgraceful about sticking to the proposition that the Speaker’s ruling is final?
64. Why is it disgraceful? He ruled that a motion about a subject connected to but much larger than the treaty was unacceptable as there wasn’t really enough time to get into it. There is already not really enough time to debate the lisbon treaty fully anyway, never mind debating whether to leave the EU or not! The speaker decided that the time should be spent fully on the treaty instead, as the much larger debate wouldnt be much use in the time provided. The lib dems dissagreed quite vocally, then stomped off in a pathetic huff.
66
I think to come out would be a disaster, but the only way I can prove that is to come out, so I’d vote out too!!
63 Mike S. Absolutely correct !!
Most of Joe Public doesn’t give a Cornish pasty for the Lisbon treaty or the nuances of Lib Dem policy.
If anything the Lib Dems are finally coming into line with the other major partties…… they are split on Euro policy !!
54.”And their brilliant solution to their problems is… to promise a referendum on a subject that hasn’t been raised by anyone but them, a referendum everyone knows they would never hold if they came to power.”
Clegg has had his bluff called on an In/Out referendum and he has folded leaving his credibility in tatters. Its all the more incredible because of the juvenile attics of a few days ago, the outrage was as fake as the supposed passion to give the voters a real choice and debate on Europe.
54. Mike I’ll respond to your remarks on this issue, when you say something remotely interesting or original - i.e. something other than “no one cares no one cares”.. Because the funny thing is your party seems to care so much about getting the Lisbon Treaty passed it is prepared to humiliate itself and break a solemn promise, to do just that.
If no one cares, why not just fulfill your manifesto promise - rather than lying and jiving, and looking like a bunch of devious and risible twerps? Yet again?
60. Nothing wrong with having a referendum on the EU in toto.
But first, let’s have the referendum that EVERY SINGLE MAJOR PARTY PROMISED.
The referendum on the EU Constitution. That’s all we want. We just want the major parties to stick to their promises, stop lying and weaselling, end this in-or-out drivel, and give us the actual referendum we were promised by every party.
That’s all we want. Just let the people decide. Like you promised.
Are Labour or the Lib Dems actually capable of not dissembling or deceiving for more than, say, an hour? They remind me of the character in Jim Carrey’s “Liar Liar”. All Libs and Labourites do is lie. They can’t go for a minute without lying.
They’d probably have aneurysms if they were prevented from lying for an entire afternoon.
64. I think you should read 63 as the appropriate, self-aware and balanced way to put down the eurosceptic rants rather than accusing everyone who does not agree with you as being a tory troll.
Your assessment of the LD walk out is just as blinkered and ludicrous as SeanT’s pontifications. At least he is aware of how he comes across.
The LD MP’s looked like idiots and Clegg’s policy on the referendum has been poor. You guys are just lucky that voters are not that interested.
72 seanT. It really is a bit rich for you to say that those that have an evidentially based position are not remotely interesting or original.
The current polls are clear. Most punters don’t care. You do. The nation can live with such a deviation.
63
Agreed.
I read all the rantings about lisbon but to the avearge voter it means nowt. It does not register.
And I have to say: any policy or movement that has John Redwood as an avid supporter is deeply suspect as the man has the ability to make anything he supports suspect in the public eye.
People who rant on and on and on about the same issue and appear unable to change their tune may be right .. but are usually deeply unattractive politically. (see Tebbit, and Churchill pre war).
It doesn’t mean much to the public, however it can produce rifts and infighting, something which does bother the public. If the lib dems start fighting each other over the treaty it’ll give the tories (mainly) the chance to take some seats off them.
seanT: You won the argument the other day. Spurting out garbage like “All Libs and Labourites do is lie. They can’t go for a minute without lying. They’d probably have aneurysms if they were prevented from lying for an entire afternoon.” just reminds people what a utter fool you can be and makes them forget that you were on the winning side of the argument.
63 - I’m generalising massively from myself here Mike - but I’m sure there is a significant body of the electorate who WOULD be prepared to vote Lib Dem if only they were slightly less Euro-fanatic. Or even if they were privately Euro-fanatic but prepared to temper this by only plunging us deeper into Europe with the approval of a referendum. For a while it seemed like they were going to adopt this second position, but it turned out to be an empty promise.
On the other hand, I don’t think the LDs stand to lose many votes by tempering their Europhilia slightly.
No specific evidence for this of course, and if you’ve any polling evidence on the subject I’d be interested…
76 - Yes but the whole mess is motivated by fear of the Conservatives.
76. I think you are probably right but I think the Labdemers continued cozying up to an unpopular Labour will cost them more..certainly in Southern and Midlands marginals..
In the case of Churchill, it did not make him wrong.
80. True, infighting coupled with supporting the (unpopular) government may leave with with some severe damage at the next election.
Bit of a Boris love in today. I am a Tory but yet to be convinced for a variety of reasons.
1. I don’t trust regional polls. we have seen in the US Dem Primarries that they are all over the place
2. I am not sure that the voters know what Boris stands for and he hasn’t much time to get that across.
3. Low voter turnout makes it all a bit up in the air
4. I prefer to be pessimistic before elections i care about
“Your assessment of the LD walk out is just as blinkered and ludicrous as SeanT’s pontifications. At least he is aware of how he comes across.”
Bless you.
77. MyBoy. “seanT: You won the argument the other day.”
I won an argument?! Calloo Callay!
JackW, you are an idiot. My rejoinder to Mike Smithson on this issue - voter uninterest - has not changed. No one cared about emancipating the slaves or female suffrage for many many years. Those that did bang on about the issue were regarded as cranks, blowhards and pontificators - like me on the EU.
But were they wrong? William Wilberforce? The suffragettes? Were they wrong to bang on about it, tediously?
I am well aware that I sound cranky. I get cranked up about this. But the thing is I am right. Morally right. And at least I care about the slow debauching of our democracy.
Contrast my cranky attitude with those on the opposite side - like the Lib Dems and Labour europhiles. They are a repulsive bunch of liars whose only defense is… that no one cares they are a repulsive bunch of liars.
Well done chaps. History will clap you on the back I am sure.
83. I agree wholeheartedly with your point 4. I am really trying to keep my expectations for Boris low. The trouble is I can see the entrance to City Hall from my office and everytime I look up I keep having images of Livingstone, his desk and his cronies being carried out screaming and my hopes rise…
A new Civitas primary poll for North Carolina :
Obama 38% .. Clinton 24% .. Undecided 38%
McCain 50% .. Huckabee 23%
McCain beat both Democrats by a double digit lead in this deep red state.
http://www.jwpcivitasinstitute.org/media/poll-results/february-2008-decisionmaker-poll
………………..
A MTSU Presidential poll in Tennessee gives Clinton a clear edge over Obama against McCain, although both lose to the GOP candidate. Tennessee was a strong win for Hillary on Super Tuesday :
McCain 46% .. Clinton 41%
McCain 53% .. Obama 37%
http://www.mtsusurveygroup.org/mtpoll/s2008/MTSUPoll_political%20report_s08%20final.htm
It was supposed to split the Tories, hence all the “Time” to debate the subject.
Failed so far.
87. It hasnt worked mainly because:
a) labour are beginning to show cracks on the subject.
b) the lib dems are a mess over it.
c) the tories remember the 90’s infighting and don’t want to go back to it.
87. Very good point. The Tories are showing exemplary unity on Europe.
It’s Labour who have been obliged to threaten MPs with expulsion. And its those splitters the Lib Dems who look like the inmates from an asylum accidentally taken on a day trip to the Commons.
This is what happens if you find the ethically correct position, and stick to it, as the Tories have done. You can stand firm, united and proud on the moral high ground.
Splits, backbiting, squabbles and embarrassing walk-outs are what happens when you adopt a morally wrong position, then try to justify it with more fibs.
Deep down many Labour MPs and Lib Dems (who aren’t all mendacious slugs, I will confess) know very well that what they are doing on the Constitution is wrong. Their discomfort is emerging in these infights.
Some new updated projections for Texas. McCain still leads by over 20% and Barack Obama still leads by less than 2%.
http://thepoliticaltipster.wordpress.com/2008/02/28/obama-leads-by-137-while-mccain-leads-by-2334/
84 seanT. If you really think you can objectively compare the Lisbon treaty to the emancipation of the slaves and universal sufferage, then you really are a few chapters short of a blockbuster.
Mainly Conservative euro sceptics have ranted on this issue for more than forty years and for the most part the issue barely raises a flicker of interest for most voters. What is has done is weaken the Conservtive party and enable their opponents to portray them as a split party more interested in navel gazing euro babble than more important issues such as health, education, crime and the economy. In doing so it has only helped to send the Tories to three catastrophic defeats.
I shall wear your ‘idiot’ tag with pride.
91. Good. Then we are agreed. You are indeed an idiot.
91. Jack, you must remember seanT is a passionate Liberal Democrat who wants every comma and semi-colon of their 3-year-old manifesto implemented, despite its rejection at the last election.
Sorr Jack, but for much of the past forty years it was Labour who were split on Europe, which was the defining issue that caused 27 Labour MPs to wlak out in 1981.
In fact itis an issue taht has poisened all our political parties - a referendum on Lisbon would have lanced the boil, particularly as it would not have needed to be seen as a vote of confidence in the Government. Neither the French or Dutch Governments resigned after rejection of the treaty, nor did the Swedish Government when their people shocked the BBC and voted against the Euro.
It is this constant arrogance and assumption that Brussels knows best” which causes the damage.
93, if you have the power to keep an electoral promise it’s irrelevent whether or not you actually form the next government.
With Lib Dem support for the double-referendum amendment it stands a serious chance of going through.
Of course, that mean sticking to its manifesto and being mean to Labour.
Hey if we have a referendum to come out and we do! Then will seant argue that we should go back in again, if only so he can argue we should………I’m losing the thread: still I’m in good company.
The Spekkie not impressed by Lansley, is this the Tories clause4 moment.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/528196/lansley-splashes-the-cash.thtml
92 seanT. I’m more than happy to play the idiot to your fool!
94 Peter G. It’s certainly true that the issue has damaged Labour at times. However I strongly contend that the European issue has been far more toxic for the Tories than any other party.
I have some Spreadfair money on Boris and on Obama. Currently, Obama’s spread is 15.0 to 16.2, and Boris’s is 15.4 to 16.6. While I find my eyes confused by the similarity when quickly checking movements, I’m also interested that the market is suggesting an equal probability of an Obama presidency and a Boris mayoralty. Should the odds be equal?
93. No, I’d just like the Lib Dems to stop lying. To stop fibbing. To stop… oh what’s the use. Asking europhiles to stop lying is like asking four year olds to stop making amusing farting noises with their underarms.
Perhaps instead the Lib Dems on here, like Mike Smithson and Jack W, would like to explain how they feel about their European leader Andrew Duff: who yearns for the vanquishing of the English, and indeed said, hopefully, of the debate on the EU Constitution: “If the English can be defeated then the opposition in Prague will disappear”.
If the English can be defeated. IF THE ENGLISH CAN BE DEFEATED.
What is it like to be actually led by a self-confessed traitor? Must be weird. Then again, maybe not - for lefties.
Hillary down to 13’s on the Iowa exchanges.
I’d expect some new Ohio and Texas polls later today folowing on from the debate on Tuesday.
http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/quotes/Nomination08_quotes.html
98 Bask
In my ‘book’ it should be 4/5 Obama, 5/4 Boris.
99 In a way, SeanT, I kind of agree with him.
You see, I believe Nations, along with Religions, are a lot of nonsense and superior, highly evolved life forms like myself should rise above those sorts of things.
Naturally, I make allowances for the lower life forms and think down to their level when conversing on sites such as this, for example, but occasionally I’m prepared to reveal the lofty tenor of my thoughts, especially to the more sentient humans beings such as yourself.
103. The concept of nationhood has given rise to a lot of betting ops tho - footie, cricket, Eurovision….
101 PtP. I fear I have to advise you that the AMCB Horse’s withers ….. were indeed eh… withered !! More horses doffers than an aperitif to the main event !!
96 I don’t think it’s a Conservative spending commitment (from reading the article) so much as Lansley’s personal opinion as to how much money would have to spent on the NHS. I would certainly be unhappy with such a spending pledge, which would really tie the hands of an incoming Conservative government.
WRT the Lisbon Treaty, it really doesn’t matter that it doesn’t excite the public. It excites the political class, and does seem to be causing real turmoil in the Parliamentary Lib Dems. And like the fox-hunting issue, it will probably help the Conservatives in a handful of Con/Lib Dem marginals where a few hundred votes could tip things either way.
WRT Boris, barring a major cock-up, I think he’ll do it.
93. Err but didn’t the Lib Dems say after their pathetic walkout that the speaker was stopping them fulfilling their manifesto committment?
You obviously aren’t up to speed with the latest spin lines, though to be fair it’s not surprising you find it hard to keep up as they appear to be changing by the day.
101. Sounds about right.
I’m maxed out on bets at the mo, but if I had some cash the value would appear to be Obama who will likely move heavily odds on when/if he ties up the nomination (on March 5th?). Putting money on Boris is a proper ‘punt’, simply because both the key personalities involved are equally capable of screwing up - no odds truly represent value in the mayoral race.
“However I strongly contend that the European issue has been far more toxic for the Tories than any other party.”
In the past, but not now. Only 3 Conservatives voted for the Lisbon Treaty at the Second Reading.
97. A simplistic and juvenile analysis, as ever.
The European issue was toxic for the Tories not because it was about Europe but because they were totally split on the issue, between idiot europhiles and passionate eurosceptics.
The public as we all know is mildly eurosceptic, hence inclined to agree with the Tories. This - is - why - we - are - not - having - our - promised - referendum (are you keeping up with this, Jack? I’ll go slower if you are confused).
However the voters’ mild euroscepticism was outweighed by their deep dislike of any party in open revolt, any party that appears seriously split. That’s how Europe damaged the Tories. It wasn’t the issue itself.
Now however all the doddery and bumbling old Tory europhiles have died our or defected (I believe there are some left in the Lib Dems) and the party is largely united behind a rigorous, sensible and popular policy of euroscepticism.
Instead it is the Lib Dems and Labour who are starting to tear themselves apart on the EU, as they have both adopted a position which is morally base and politically incoherent.
That’s your politics module for the day Jack. You can go back to your knitting now.
102. By my usual rules, Peter the P, I should really dislike you intensely, and give you the caning I give all other horrid europhiles.
Unfortunately I have met you and know you to be a courteous, humane and very thoughtful bloke, so I have to keep making exceptions just for you.
Grrr!
The tories have been so damaged by europe in the past, it’s become a subject Cameron can pretty much tell them to do whatever he likes on it. Their too worried about it splitting them apart to try and form their own little cliques.
108 Sean. True. However a party can be united and obsessed and fail to catch the mood of the nation.
105
Its called a pledge, seems pretty firm to me.
A Conservative administration would increase health spending by up to an extra £28 billion a year, a leading moderniser has told The Times. Andrew Lansley, the Shadow Health Secretary, gave a long-term commitment that under the Tories health spending will rise to take up an extra 2 per cent of GDP.
“I think we are bound to have rising real-terms health expenditure,” he said. “That means that health expenditure is going to be a rising proportion of total public expenditure.”
It is the most explicit pledge to increase spending on the NHS since David Cameron became Tory leader and take the party into territory beyond current Labour commitments. But Mr Lansley said that funding such increases would require cuts elsewhere in public services if the Conservatives were to meet their tax pledges.
106. I only speak for myself.
I think having 27 electorates second-guessing 27 governments over a treaty negotiated at length and in detail is nonsense.
Governments should negotiate and sign treaties, and if you don’t like the result, kick them out at the next election.
112.”Its called a pledge, seems pretty firm to me.”
I think that Sean is correct about this.
113, so the government can agree anything in the meantime? WHat if Labour signed over the whole country to the EU?
Democracy means more than one vote every 4-5 years. If there’s a fundamental change we deserve a referendum, especially when everybody promised one in their manifestos.
109 Your amusing and amicable rejoinder made me smile, but there’s a serious point there.
Some on this site may wonder why I ever defend, support or tolerate an outrageous, europhobic young reprobate like you. The answer is that for all your demented rantings, your writings are shot through with a humanism that a discerning reader such as myself recognises instantly.
So you are not merely tolerated, despite some of your ridiculous view, you are enjoyed and admired - around this neck of the woods anyway.
Pax vobiscum.
the only useful referendum i can see for the europe issue is a “further in”/”further out” one (possibly with extra status quo option). this way the government of the time has a clear direction and mandate each time a minor EU treaty is discussed.
no point whatsoever having a referendum on a treaty where all the debate is on technicalities. and i’m not sure there is much mileage for any of the parties. in particular, the tories, if successful in their current line, risk drawing attention to their own divisions/gulfs on europe.
109 seanT. When you use your default abuse techniques it’s a sure sign that you should return to casting your mind to book titles and nom de plumes.
117. Thats what labour were hoping for, no divisions have surfaced so far. In fact the only divisions have appeared in the lib dems and some labour MP’s.
112 The Times may call it a pledge, but it doesn’t read to me like one.
111. If anyone is failing to catch the mood of the nation, surely it is Labour and the Lib Dems who are refusing the public the referendum that the public wants.
I wonder if there isn’t a much broader theme for the Tories to exploit here though, encompassing the erosion of democratic government and accountability at a variety of levels.
Not only is parliament’s authority being stealthily transferred to an unelected foreign bureaucracy, but within the UK we have an increasing transfer of power in areas like planning and education away from local government to quangos, regional development agencies and ‘partnerships’ which are usually a front for various corporate interests.
Local government is in danger of becoming as much a flimsy democratic facade concealing government by bureaucracy as national government has become in so many areas due to the expansion of the EU’s competences.
We also have public services like the police becoming increasingly insensitive to local demands, and even becoming politicised.
So let’s see the Tories calling for a democratic revolution at all levels, including loads of referendums - national and local. That might also get the public re-engaged with politics.
re 101 I would make Boris 4/6 now though there will continue to be a lot of value above that.
At the moment we have phases of “loyalty” punters who are betting for their champion out of their sense of allegiance. I’m picking off bets at the appropriate price.
The Mori poll which was supposed to be favourable to Ken is both old and is based on 48% saying they are certain to vote. That’s about a third more than last time.
Almost all the nation voting intention polls are showing the Tories doing particularly well in the capital.
A useful analysis below (scroll down) on how Ohio will carve up its Democrat delegates :
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
120.More on this over at ConHom, Tories DO NOT plan to spend more on health than Labour.
107. I would suggest McCain or a Republican win might be the best value at the moment if you believe recent American polls on McCain head to heads with Obama or Clinton. The US “surge” in Iraq and the policy to support local Sunni militia groups to keep the peace appears to be working. Unfortunately all this might work well for the GOP come next November.
I’ve said before that I believe that the only natural political units are the parish and the planet.
Like (almost) everyone else I’m glad to see Jack W back.
(Oh, and I’m about to e-mail my Lib Dem MP saying that I think the Lib Dems should support a referendum on the Lisbon treaty - although I’m beginning to wonder whether that point of view is tainted by its expression in some posts here.)
113. So on that basis you’d be perfectly happy for the next Tory government to roll back every single European Treaty we have signed, since the first one in 1975, WITHOUT a referendum.
This would of course take us into a situation similar to EFTA, indeed arguably we would be even more outwith the EU than EFTA members.
You’d be cool with that, without a referendum? Yeah? That’s your logic. Indeed by yr logic the Tories could then take us into NAFTA, again without a referendum.
This is just one of the problems lefty europhiles are storing up for themselves by their disgraceful behaviour. They are giving any future government carte blanche to do basically what they like with the nation’s constitution, without a plebiscite.
Every ratchet is reversible.
116. Pax to you too, Peter. I think this actually is one reason why I don’t come to pb parties. It’s much harder to be viciously mean and amusingly nasty (well, I find it amusing)to people you have never met.
Imagine if I went to a pb shindig and met, say, NickP and Roger - and actually liked them! Horror of horrors! This is quite possible, as I like most people I meet.
But then I could never be really horrible to then and my pb joy would be very confined. So I’d best steer clear of the Nat Lib Club.
OK, gotta have my bath now. Dusk is falling over the Sukhumvit condos, and my Bombay Sapphire is beckoning at Suzie Wongs.
Sawadee.
re 121. To see how much the public cares about the EU just check the latest MORI poll where those participating are asked, unprompted, to list the major issues.
Last month it was in 24th position with just 1% saying it was the most important issue facing the country.
I think that many Tory supporters enter into a fantasy land when they talk about the EU.
128. It may not be at the top of voters’ agenda, Mike, but they still want a referendum. And denying it is a clear breach of manifesto committments, a degradation of democracy.
128, and yet 80% want the referendum they were promised.
If you asked people to list the bodyparts they consider most important the appendix and coccyx would end up pretty low, but that wouldn’t mean they’d be happy to lose them.
Even if you consider the Consti-treaty a wonderful and super thing, we were promised a referendum. And if it’s a wonderful document there won’t be any problem persuading people to vote for it, will there?
126 agingjb. Thanks. Although I rubbed Jon C up the wrong way last night and he’s fled the stage …. and I’d only been back a day !!
Hope he changes his mind.
BTW. Forgive me if I don’t reply to all the messages here, emails etc. It’s really great and unexpected to be back in the saddle, heathier than for many years and fighting for the Jacobite cause on PB and making a few quid besides !!
122 Once the political cycle turns, London tends to produce bigger swings than the country as a whole. IMHO, for this reason, I think that seats like Ealing North, Harrow West, Dagenham & Rainham, and Brent North ought to be treated as marginals at the next election, even though they like fairly safe on paper.
Mike,
Your in danger of arguing that we do not need to keep our referendum promise because nobody will notice.
re 24 speaking about Brown - Yesterday in parliament seemed to give PMQs to Cameron yesterday, was scathing about Brown’s questioning of Cameron. Also I thought the speaker’s response to Nick Clegg was risible - rather than quietening the horde he seemed to blame Clegg for the way he phrased his question.
re 37/38 if McCain were an average Englishman - it’s 32/1 that he’d be dead in a year.
133. Which would be a contemptible position for any democrat to hold. But I’m sure what Mike actually means is that there is no point in the Tories making too much of this issue because ‘no-one cares’.
128, I’ve seen this nonsense trotted out many times, the fact that the Referendum is not at the top of peoples list does not mean they don’t want one.
I judge things by very basic set of rules; Opinion groups ‘follow the money’ Dictatorships ‘follow the boats’ and finally Polls, if the question has never been asked, then the Government already knows the answer and doesn’t like it.
130. It’s a bit like the fox-hunting issue. Very few people really cared about it, but when the public were asked, there was an overwhelming majority in favour of a ban.
From what I recall of the early days of pb.c. , though, the usual suspects were NOT screaming for Labour to honour their manifesto promise.
135 That’s a 3% probability, Chris.
Election is in less than a year, so I’m right - the 1.05 on offer on offer on Betfair is value.
136 - Indeed, but then it makes the Lib Dem’s position slightly more farcical because Davey was clearly wrong that this is the debate everyone wants. Rationally the Lib Dems Euro-contortions are simply a factor of them not having resolved their electoral problem in that there is a slight to moderate squeeze in their vote occurring. They seem to be not quite sure how to deal with the issue and in many ways appear to be adopting positions that will only exacerbate their problems.
There are some behaviours described by Eric Berne in his book Games People Play.
The Adult ignores the Naughty Child - and so the Child wins. To prevent the Child from winning the Adult must act like a Child - but the Adult loses. This is how Labour and the likes of Jack W drive people out of politics.
There is a 3rd way. The Adult can take the Role of Adult. This takes some effort and in reality, people simply turn their back on the child.
After losing the discussion, Jack W made false statements. When proved wrong he ignored facts and resorted to insults (and boasting of an intelectual prowess). Roger giggled and drooled with delight, others found it boorish.
Jack W is a argumentative old scot with a lot of time on his hands. I suspect his beligerance has driven away all close to him. Now, he finds himself alone and finds time to spend hovering over a keyboard determined to get the last word, doing unto Net users as he did to colleagues, friends and family.
But it is interesting - because this is a model for British Politics.
Eventually, people tire of the argumentative politicians that lie and insult. They can win the game for period of time. People will turn their backs on the and they shall find themselves alone.
This is what we are finding. For many years, Labour has behaved like a Naughty Child while Conservatives turn their back and refuse to bring themselves down to their level.
Labour won the game - but now the voters are also turning there back. Labour’s loneliness shall be measured in seats.
139 - But you could get that rate (i.e. the 2% or so above the prospect of death) at Northern Rock by the time they pay out! Also, there is a risk that ill health short of death, or a scandal or something like that could put him out. I don’t think 1.05 is value and have taken my profits on McCain (I got him at good odds last year) now.
i very much doubt that 80% of people really want a referendum - after all, nothing like that many people ever vote.
http://www.idontwantareferendum.com doesn’t seem to be up and running yet, so i don’t have a platform.
118 - Whilst it is wonderful to have you back, Jack W, what on earth possessed you to type:
“109 seanT. When you use your default abuse techniques it’s a sure sign that you should return to casting your mind to book titles and nom de plumes.
by Jack W February 28th, 2008 at 11:25 am “?
The plural of ‘nom de plume’ is ‘noms de plume’, not ‘nom de plumes’! Given that I do not know whether you are a serviceman or civilian, I will need to consult several Attorneys-General and Solicitors-General to know whether jury trials or Courts-Martial are more applicable in cases where it is unclear as to which jurisdiction you should be subject. They shall decide where you shall receive your Coup(s) de Grace.
Of course, were you still ‘Peter Jacques’ (a corporate body composed of several persons), perhaps Lettres de cachet would be more applicable.